A land-looser is entitled to an alternative plot despite family members owning property, as the Housing Board's failure to provide possession cannot negate the petitioner's rights.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP KUMAR, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondent concerned to allot a piece of land to the petitioner in Bahadurpur area in Middle Income Category (MIC) as the petitioner was in category of land acquired category in Land acquisition process.

(ii) For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondents concerned to hand over the possession of a plot/piece of land to the petitioner in Bahadurpur Area in M.I.G. category.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his plot no. 740 khata no. 256, Thana no. 10 having an area of 0.045 acre in Bahadurpur was acquired by Bihar State Housing Board in year 1979. Thereafter, compensation was paid to the petitioner by Land Acquisition Officer. After acquisition of land by the Housing Board, the petitioner became a landless person and applied for allotment of a plot in Bahadurpur area, Patna. After the submission of application, registration was made and receipt was issued. On the basis of lottery system in Middle Income Group, M.I.G. Plot No. 10M/116 was allotted in favour of the petitioner vide letter no. 671 dated 20.07.1991 in Digha Housing Colony, Patna. Thereafter, the Bihar State Housing Board prepared a list of applicant waiting for allotment of land in which petition was at serial no. 04.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that there is specific provision of allotment of land in favour of a land looser, from whom the land was acquired by Bihar State Housing Board. The said provision is enshrined under Rule 10(A)(1) of the Bihar State Housing Board Regulation, which clearly speaks that priority is given to land loosers. According to the petitioner though he was allotted a plot by the Housing Board in Rajeev Nagar but the physical possession of allotted land was not given to the petitioner due to some acquisition dispute in Rajeev Nagar. After which, proposal was made in the meeting of the Board to shift allotment of plot to the petitioner in Bahadurpur Housing Colony.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that similarly situated persons namely, Nand Lal Tibriwal and Ashok Kumar Sah, who were at serial no. 23 & 24 in the waiting list were allotted the plots after the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4969/1996 vide order dated 24.09.1998, which was affirmed till the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Similarly, one Angiri Devi & Angeer Devi, who also approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10340 of 2003 was allotted a plot.

5. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Housing Board in its second counter affidavit tried to distinguished the petitioner’s case from others who have been allotted the plots by the orders of this Court. The Housing Board has also taken a new ground that since the wife of the petitioner owns M.I.G. plot no. 8M/28 in Bahadurpur Housing Colony, the petitioner cannot be allotted the plot in terms of regulation 8 (D) of the Bihar State Housing Regulation 1982, but this regulation does not come in the way of allotment of plot to the petitioner as the same has been purchased in the year 2001 in which he has given an affidavit that there was no land either in the name of petitioner or in the name of his family members and the petitioner comes in the category of land looser.

6. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board submits that pursuant to the application of the petitioner for allotment of M.I.G. plot and taking into account the provisions of the Bihar State Housing Board Regulation, 1983 priority was given to him in allotment of plot and accordingly M.I.G. Plot No. 10 M/116 at Digha Housing Colony was allotted in favour of the petitioner. The decision of allotment of MIG Plot No. 10M/116 at Digha Housing Colony was duly communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.07.1991 but despite knowledge about all